What would you do next if you had successfully brokered a Neville Chamberlin style deal with a rogue state that wants to annihilate America and her Middle East allies? Well. . . Youd downgrade diplomatic ties with the Vatican, of course. At least, thats what you would do if you were working in the Obama White House. The White House has recently announced that they will shut down the US Embassy to the Holy See, and relocate it to a safer location on the grounds of the American Embassy in Italy.

Officially, the US is explaining the relocation effort as a security measure in reaction to the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. . . Because, ya know, those crazy Vatican Catholics are a naturally militant bunch. Heaven forbid someone makes an anti-Christian movie! Whoa, the whole place could erupt into a deadly string of mass prayers and forgiveness! (Ahem Sarcasm.)

The decision on part of the US Administration to move the American Embassy is being interpreted by many as a slap in the face to the Vatican. At the very least, it is likely to produce a tension that will lead to a deterioration of US/ Vatican communication and cooperation.

Adding to the suspicion that Americas decision is primarily political, and not based in security concerns, is the fact that the current Embassy has state of the art security. According to former US Ambassador James Nicholson, the current location is highly secure, and pivotal to continuing relations with the Holy See.

Besides: Were talking about the US Embassy. . . In Vatican City. Its not as if were discussing an un-fortified compound in the heart of a Libyan war-zone. (Cough*Benghazi*Cough) Heres a solution: add a couple more Marines, and maybe borrow the Pope-Mobile for high profile visitors.

Suggesting that Obama is intentionally downgrading US/ Vatican ties due to some resentment toward Catholic policy would almost seem too petty to contemplate; until it is put into a broader perspective. The Holy See has proven, throughout the years, to be a monumental asset in world affairs. Our relationship with the Vatican aids in humanitarian missions, peace brokerage, and international trade with governments of all religious affiliations.

According to Nicholson, This is anything but a good time to diminish the stature of this post. To diminish the stature of this post is to diminish its influence. In an age where Obamas allies in the Middle East include Taliban rebels and Al Qaida operatives, the timing seems even more precarious. When Iran feels emboldened on the world stage, when Israel feels threatened, and when Christians are finding the Middle East to be an ever-increasingly dangerous corner of the world, one would think the US Government would be bolstering its relationship with Gods emissary.

But. . . Maybe thats the problem. Perhaps Obama is just a bit upset that the Catholic world headquarters hasnt yet offered universal contraception to its female members. Or perhaps hes a little unnerved about their use of the word Christmas. Or, maybe, hes just feeling a bit irritated that the Pope consults God every day, rather than the White House.

Whatever the reason, the end result is the same: A sizeable devolution of US/ Vatican ties. Not to mention a marginal political fallout here at home. After all, Christians are less than pleased with the details of Obamacare, the repeal of dont ask dont tell, and the White Houses general disregard for religious liberty. So What the heck? Go ahead and insult the Pope while youre at it.

Furthermore, the move illustrates our Presidents perspective on right and wrong when it comes to world events. It says something about the Administrations world view when they champion an Iranian Nuclear deal that lifts sanction and emboldens our enemies the very same week they withdraw diplomatic ties from the Vatican.

At least When Neville Chamberlin was trotting around Europe declaring peace in our time, he was primarily naïve. Thats not necessarily the case with our current leader of appeasement.

Of course, then again, maybe the President is just trying to be fair. Maybe he didnt want Israel to feel like the only religious sovereign-state to be snubbed by the US this week.

This is pretty unbelievable. Could the GOP make this a campaign issue to return the embassy to the Vatican? I wonder. Of course, so many catholics are more interested in socialism than any other issue, so this may not sway them from the Democrat party in large numbers.

On the other hand, with the Pope now railing against capitalism ala' Hugo Chavez, perhaps the GOP should openly thank Obama for taking this strong stance in defense of Capitalism.

Guess I'll have to check in with Ann Barnhardt to see her reaction to these developments.

US Embassy in Rome is a fortress of walls, cameras and barriers. A huge place. All US Embassies in Europe are fortresses. Unique and indeed foreign compared with other diplomatic missions.

Interesting points.

A thread started yesterday, almost made it sound like the U.S. Embassy-to-"Holy-See" that is being moved to the greater U.S. Diplomatic Mission to Italy (Embassy Rome), was being moved from Vatican City, itself.

The Michael Schaus article from Townhall, at the header of this FR thread, seems to be laboring under that same erroneous assumption, by which I mean, the US Embassy to the Vatican is not presently now, or has ever been in Vatican City.

Before doing some checking, I had something of the same thoughts as Shaus expressed here;

Besides: Were talking about theUS Embassy. . . In Vatican City. [italicizing intact, from Townhall source article] Its not as if were discussing an un-fortified compound in the heart of a Libyan war-zone.

with my own thinking being (operating on assumption the US facility was in Vatican City, so thence likely to be fairly safe) that there was no real need to move that presence for reason of safety --- other than to perhaps remove a potential target from within Vatican City as a favor to the Vatican..? But that's not necessary, since it's not there in the first place.

The U.S. Embassy Vatican has never been in that city-state that lay entirely within the city of Rome, but has been located on Aventine Hill (one of the famous 7 hills of Rome) since 1984, when official US diplomatic ties were first established with that entity known as "Holy See" (they like it when they are called that - makes 'em feel special).

In light of the U.S. not having fully formal diplomatic relations with the Holy See (having consular level contact, but lacking full ambassadorial level for those times prior to loss of the Papal States, with later there having been envoys to popes, and almost always some representation/communication first to the Papal States, then later to contact those at 'Vatican City'; it stands that all should be reminded there was no "Vatican City", until such was created 1926 as answer to what in those times was referred to as the Roman question. It could (should?) be noted Pius IX was stubborn to the end, not wanted to cede Quirinal Palace refusing to hand over the keys (showing that papal 'thought' at the time, included having secular rule as a king of sorts as being their own 'divine right' like other 'kings', etc.).

Meanwhile, there is still diplomatic presence of the Vatican, to the U.S. They have a nice building, sort-of between Norway and Finland, kind-of across street from Naval Observatory grounds, in Washington, D.C.

Interesting perspective. I hadnt thought of the coincidence of the Iran pact and the shut down of the Vatican embassy until now, but its a very likely possibility.

Though I'd just as soon see this as another of Obama's "in your face" type of behavior, the only support for that is seeming to go against the Vatican's past expressed desires for diplomatic relations to themselves from nations, be separate from ambassadorial relations of those nations, with the nation of Italy itself.

As it is, there will remain a U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican itself, though that offices headquarters will now be housed in the same building as Embassy Rome. If it makes anyone feel any better...I read that there will be a separate entrance, just for Embassy Vatican.

Let us all not read too much into this, for "safety" may have been something of an issue. Besides...it would be tough for any now opposing the move, if that separate embassy 'building' as it were, came under attack. This may be one reason the "Vatican" as far as I know, has for now not ventured comment.

Let us keep our powder dry here, folks.

Obama can be seen clearly enough as enemy of Christianity for other reasons. Washington once again backing off from Iran, and this time seeming to acquiesce in some form to Iranian demands they have some "right to" nuclear weapons (the devil is in the details of the details of this latest "diplomatic deal" with the Iranians, whatever the h_ _ _ that actually is) is the real problem, not the consolidation of diplomatic offices for both U.S. diplomatic mission to Italy, and to the Vatican, into one building, in Rome.

I agree. There was a thread on this yesterday. The US Vatican embassy isn’t in the Vatican. And it’s apparantly going into a new building (so not just a different door) on the Rome Embassy’s grounds. With assurances that the two embassies will remain distinct...

This probably makes sense from a security standpoint, and is going to save money. I bet the current Vatican Embassy is worth millions for both the building and land.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.